Re: Nmap Public Source License Version 0.94 - Is it DFSG-compliant?
>>>>> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli <email@example.com> writes:
Francesco> I am under the impression that a more correct way to
Francesco> achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to
Francesco> create a different license, possibly reusing some parts
Francesco> of the GNU GPL v2, but without referring to the GNU GPL
Francesco> v2 (except for the acknowledgment that the new license
Francesco> includes some modified pieces taken from the GNU GPL v2).
Francesco> In other words, following the [FAQ].
That's certainly what the FSF would prefer you do, yes.
However, there are a few things to consider:
1) It's not clear that the FSF's copyright on the GPL allows you to
borrow text from it for your license. I believe it does not.
2) It will be harder to figure out how a license constructed as you
propose differs from the GPL and may be harder to analyze such a
Keep in mind that the FSF, authors of the FAQ you point to want to make
it hard to "fork" the GPL both because they would rather you simply pick
the GPL and because they want to discourage license proliferation.
There's nothing wrong with those goals; as an example Debian almost
certainly wants to discourage license proliferation too.
But those goals do create a certain bias in what the FSF recommends.
In either case, I think we're well beyond the scope of this list.